One argument found in the reading on the Conspectus of Bakunin’s Statism and Anarchy was that all private owners would give up ownership of their companies to the proletariats. From my understanding, Marx is suggesting there will be a transition but all private business will inevitably cease. “or the proletariat…must as government take measures through which the peasant finds his condition immediately improved, to win him for the revolution; measures which will at least provide the possibility of easing the transition from private ownership of land to collective ownership, so that the peasant arrives at this of his own accord, from economic reasons”. Marx seems to be calling for the abolition of private property based on businesses being dependent on the working class, therefore joint ownership is justified. Then uses the analogy of the Slavs dependency on Germany to describe the relationship between the working class and private business owners “the Slavs will stand in the same slavish dependence towards the victorious German proletariat as the latter does at present towards its bourgeoisie”.
I find this all very problematic as I am a small business owner, which gives me a vested interest in protecting private property. In the scenario described above, I can imagine the “peasant” (private business owners) not allowing the working class from legally or physically taking away ownership rights. I can relate to Marx’s description of business owners and their relationship to the labor class, as transactions often seem to benefit the owner rather than the customer. Although, I tend to focus on all that can be accomplished for consumers through the utilization of services provided by business rather than the ladder. For every business owner had to cultivate his resources and services, before providing them to others. To abolish another laborers’ hard work seems destructive and the transition period Marx envisions sounds like the authoritative policing of the non-proletarians.